Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8501, changed abstract to 'In IPv4, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) commonly provide IN-ADDR.ARPA information for their customers by prepopulating the zone with one PTR record for every available address. This practice does not scale in IPv6. This document analyzes different approaches and considerations for ISPs in managing the IP6.ARPA zone.', changed pages to 15, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-11-28, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2018-10-01

07

Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2018-10-01

07

Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2018-10-01

07

Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2018-09-27

07

Cindy Morgan

IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

2018-09-27

07

Alissa Cooper

[Ballot comment]Please respond to the Gen-ART reviewer. He had valuable comments.

2018-09-27

07

Alissa Cooper

Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper

2018-09-27

07

Alissa Cooper

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper

2018-09-27

07

Benjamin Kaduk

[Ballot comment]Thanks for the well-written document! I wrote down some thoughtsI had while reading, but they should be treated as very weak ...

[Ballot comment]Thanks for the well-written document! I wrote down some thoughtsI had while reading, but they should be treated as very weak suggestionsand no pressure to apply them is implied.

Section 2.1

DNS administrators should consider the uses for reverse DNS records and the number of services affecting the number of users when evaluating this option.

nit: maybe this could be qualified as "number of services relying on PTRrecords", as otherwise it can be read as a bit of a non sequitur.

Section 2.3

Administrators may want to consider user creativity if they provide host names, as described in Section 5.4 "User Creativity."

Perhaps "the risks of user creativity"?

Section 2.3.1

This option may be scalable, although registration following an outage may cause significant load, and hosts using privacy extensions [RFC4941] may update records daily. [...]

I think I've heard of deployments that update more often than daily, thoughit's unclear that there's a need for this document to mention suchpossibilities.

Section 4

There are six common uses for PTR lookups:

I'm a little uncomfortable asserting this as a complete and exhaustivelisting in an Informational document, but I also can't dispute itsveracity. I'll trust that the authors and WG have done sufficient researchand not request any change here.

For residential users, if these four use cases are important to the ISP, the administrator will then need to consider how to provide PTR records.

... but I do have to wonder which four of the six the ISPs are supposed tobe considering.

A valid negative response (such as NXDOMAIN) is a valid response, if the four cases above are not essential; delegation where no name server exists should be avoided.

... and similarly here.

Section 5.1

Providing location information in PTR records is useful for troubleshooting, law enforcement, and geolocation services, but for the same reasons can be considered sensitive information.

It may be worth clarifying that the sensitive nature is an argument for notpublishing, since there aren't really well-established schemes forfiltering access to the relevant DNS records.

Section 5.3

Maybe say something about "for use in other protocols" if we're not tryingto limit to DNSKEY and friends?

2018-09-27

07

Benjamin Kaduk

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk

[Ballot comment]Abstract: Can "commonly provide IN-ADDR-ARPA information" be stated more conceptually in the abstract?

2018-09-26

06

Ben Campbell

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell

2018-09-26

06

Alexey Melnikov

[Ballot comment]I feel a bit underwhelmed by this document: it defines problems, list some solutions, but doesn't always provide an advice. Statements like ...

[Ballot comment]I feel a bit underwhelmed by this document: it defines problems, list some solutions, but doesn't always provide an advice. Statements like "The string of inferences is questionable, and may become unneeded if other means for evaluating trustworthiness (such as positive reputations) become predominant in IPv6." are true, but doesn't really help me if I need to solve the problem.

Nit: CPE acronym is used without being defined.

2018-09-26

06

Alexey Melnikov

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov

2018-09-25

06

Adam Roach

[Ballot comment]Thanks for the thought and work that went into this well-written document. Ihave only two relatively minor comments.

If I read things correctly, A naïve implementation of what is described inthis section would result in the nameserver using some amount of state foreach IPv6 PTR record that was queried, for the duration of the TTL. Given theextraordinary expanse of IPv6 space that such a server is likely delegated, itseems that there's an attack in here whereby an attacker asks for an arbitrarynumber of PTR records within a single server's range, each resulting inadditional memory consumption for whatever time period the TTL represents.

There probably should be some text in here warning implementations to guardagainst such attacks either by limiting such storage, or by generating suchnames in a deterministic way such that they don't require cacheing orpre-populating AAAA records (instead generating them on the fly)

2018-09-25

06

Adam Roach

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach

2018-09-25

06

Deborah Brungard

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard

[Ballot comment]One comment on terminology: I don't think "transmission control" is actually a well-defined term, besides that TCP stands for transmission control protocol. However, the services TCP provides are usually called connection-orientation and reliability (and flow and congestion control aso.). I guess what's most import in your case is reliability….

2018-09-20

06

Mirja Kühlewind

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind

The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG(dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Reverse DNS in IPv6 forInternet Service Providers' <draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-06.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits finalcomments on this action. Please send substantive comments to theietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may besent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning ofthe Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

In IPv4, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) commonly provide IN-ADDR.ARPA information for their customers by prepopulating the zone with one PTR record for every available address. This practice does not scale in IPv6. This document analyzes different approaches and considerations for ISPs in managing the IP6.ARPA zone.

Document Type: This document is intended to be Informational. It intends to give guidance to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on how to managePTR records with IPv6.

2. Review and Consensus

This document was reviewed pretty extensively. There were several issues brought up during the document, which the authors and theworking group were able to resolve over time. Since the document presents operational guidance, there is no specific implementations needed.

3. Intellectual Property

There is no IPR related to this document.

4. Other Points

There are no downard references in this document.

There are no IANA considerations for this document.

The only Nit with the document is this:

The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

RFC 2119 keyword, line 322: '...erior interfaces MUST NOT be processed...'-----Checklist

This section is not meant to be submitted, but is here as a usefulchecklist of things the document shepherd is expected to have verifiedbefore publication is requested from the responsible Area Director. Ifthe answers to any of these is "no", please explain the situation inthe body of the writeup.

X Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?

X Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?

X Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?

X Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?

X Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (seehttp://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests? (In general, nits should be fixed before the document is sent to the IESG. If there are reasons that some remain (false positives, perhaps, or abnormal things that are necessary for this particular document), explain them.)

X Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?

X Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?

N/A - Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?

N/A - If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?

N/A - If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?

N/A - IANA Considerations: - Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions. - Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries? - Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)? - Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries? - For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call? - For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives? Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?

2018-07-18

05

Tim Wicinski

Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari

2018-07-18

05

Tim Wicinski

IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up